Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Galloism]

So do we - but it's always a range so the judge can adjust based on circumstances. I'd be surprised if Finland wasn't similar.



I would love to, but feminism, as a movement, controls the dialogue surrounding DV in my country and is clinging to it like glue.



Ellen Pence also promotes the false narrative that women are almost always violent only in self defense or in reaction to previous violence.



Questionable. Women live in constant fear at night, apparently. There might be men out after dark.



If it were widely accepted it would be widely stated, but you couldn't find one example.



Given women's issues are given much much more time than men's issues, I call bullshit.



It has everything to do with feminism when feminism, as a movement, constantly works to reinforce the violent man/innocent woman gender dynamic.

Ranges from 1st to 5th degree and intentionality.

How does it control it? It's certainly not in power anywhere.

You clearly aren't paying attention. When it comes to DV and rape research, feminism is in power everywhere in the west. Observe:

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

Because there is some bizarre pushback over women thinking "in these areas, I think we don't enjoy the same things men do here", I believe there is a significant bias from anti-feminist outlets to play up these groups and project some image that this is all the feminist movement is.

Does it not surprise you that after all these years people still seriously bring up that legitimately one really angry red-haired woman for "look how trash all of feminism is"?

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

That's bullshit, that's like saying men do it as a reaction to women being "bitches" like some MRAs word it.

Yes, it is bullshit. It's also a mainstream feminist position, at least among academics and those who control the domestic violence research and significantly influence government policy on the subject.

Some probably do in lower class areas. There's areas in Finland I'd get beat up too. It's not a fantasy.

Here's the thing: if you're a man, you're significantly more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a similarly situated woman. Yet we are surrounded constantly with the narrative of ending violence against women (which isn't a bad goal in of itself, except that it's like a narrative that we need to end racism against white people). Yet, it's the most protected class that needs to be in constant fear, and feminism stokes this overblown fear (or, as IR would say, irrational).

I found wiki sites and a few discussions on reddit. The word isn't really used, but the concept is widely known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, but for women. Not that radical of an idea.

Except you can't find a single advocacy group or political body ever using the term. Not ever. I mean, I made it really easy for you - one example. You can't cite one. If it's a widely known concept, why does no one seemingly use it?

Trafficking, catcalling, stalking, rapist conviction rates, etc. These aren't really discussed that much in powerful areas,

These are discussed constantly in powerful areas.

and neither are male suicides, prison rape, incarceration rates, alcoholism etc. Both genders still face extreme problems that need to all be addressed and discussed by powerful people.

Here's a funny thing about male suicide. One british MP decided to try and bring it up for discussion on international men's day.

He was mocked in public for it by another member of parliament - an openly avowedly feminist member of parliament.

[Kvatchdom]

Ranges from 1st to 5th degree and intentionality.

How does it control it? It's certainly not in power anywhere.

You clearly aren't paying attention. When it comes to DV and rape research, feminism is in power everywhere in the west. Observe:

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.



I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

That's bullshit, that's like saying men do it as a reaction to women being "bitches" like some MRAs word it.

Yes, it is bullshit. It's also a mainstream feminist position, at least among academics and those who control the domestic violence research and significantly influence government policy on the subject.

Some probably do in lower class areas. There's areas in Finland I'd get beat up too. It's not a fantasy.

Here's the thing: if you're a man, you're significantly more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a similarly situated woman. Yet we are surrounded constantly with the narrative of ending violence against women (which isn't a bad goal in of itself, except that it's like a narrative that we need to end racism against white people).

I found wiki sites and a few discussions on reddit. The word isn't really used, but the concept is widely known. It's the same as toxic masculinity, but for women. Not that radical of an idea.

Except you can't find a single advocacy group or political body ever using the term. Not ever. I mean, I made it really easy for you - one example. You can't cite one. If it's a widely known concept, why does no one seemingly use it?

Trafficking, catcalling, stalking, rapist conviction rates, etc. These aren't really discussed that much in powerful areas,

These are discussed constantly in powerful areas.

and neither are male suicides, prison rape, incarceration rates, alcoholism etc. Both genders still face extreme problems that need to all be addressed and discussed by powerful people.

Here's a funny thing about male suicide. One british MP decided to try and bring it up for discussion on international men's day.

He was mocked in public for it by another member of parliament - an openly avowedly feminist member of parliament.

Your first link doesn't exist, but I believe that. Radicals exist in every movement, and are often more effective in getting their stuff done during eras of instability. However, again, feminism isn't a monolith or one organization, or even just one ideology.

American white liberals who downplay DV and rape aren't seen as feminists by most of the community from what I've seen. In Finland, rape was only considered rape when it included a man doing it to a woman till 199-something, and didn't even include oral stuff, but our first female president and a feminist while in parliament back then changed that, and now women are charged with it the same as men. During her time teachers who were fucking their kids also got their own set of laws and punishments. Nitpicking certain people won't do you no good with such a wide ranging idea. It's the same as with Islam, you won't blame a reformist for the actions of a Salafi. A minority group that's noisy will always be heard more than the moderates. Most people didn't even notice when British Mosques condemned all the recent terror attacks, and even refuse to bury the criminals.
Feminism has achieved many, many more things than what you've listed. Like I said, nitpicking ain't an argument.

No it's not though. May have been in 2007 but I'm in quite a lot of forums and communities, and discussed with probably thousands of people, and that simply is not a thing people believe in.

Of robbery or murder, yes. Of rape and sexual assault, no. It's not supposed to be a race, and focusing on either just creates a power vacuum that's filled with loudmouths like the MRAs in Redpill or RadFems in jezebel or whatever they go to. It's not the same as ending racism against white people, at all. If it still happens in Finland, it happens in the US.

The concept is, the word isn't. When has a feminist not said that there are cultural boundaries keeping women in certain boxes of assumptions?

Where?

Ah yes, the MP who was then ostracized by countless feminist groups. I don't know anyone on the left or right who like her aside big city liberals who's only talking points are "rape is BAD, peace is GOOD". Not a very good example.

[Galloism]

You clearly aren't paying attention. When it comes to DV and rape research, feminism is in power everywhere in the west. Observe:






Yes, it is bullshit. It's also a mainstream feminist position, at least among academics and those who control the domestic violence research and significantly influence government policy on the subject.



Here's the thing: if you're a man, you're significantly more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a similarly situated woman. Yet we are surrounded constantly with the narrative of ending violence against women (which isn't a bad goal in of itself, except that it's like a narrative that we need to end racism against white people).



Except you can't find a single advocacy group or political body ever using the term. Not ever. I mean, I made it really easy for you - one example. You can't cite one. If it's a widely known concept, why does no one seemingly use it?



These are discussed constantly in powerful areas.



Here's a funny thing about male suicide. One british MP decided to try and bring it up for discussion on international men's day.

He was mocked in public for it by another member of parliament - an openly avowedly feminist member of parliament.

Your first link doesn't exist, but I believe that.

Sorry, it moved I guess.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Strau ... -PV_10.pdf

Radicals exist in every movement, and are often more effective in getting their stuff done during eras of instability. However, again, feminism isn't a monolith or one organization, or even just one ideology.

Well, you've let the lunatics run the asylum then. As I said - this is policy getting enacted worldwide with the express purpose of protecting women abusers. You saw it yourself in the Ellen Pence paper, a feminist you said you respected by the way, where she specifically stated feminism needed to advocate on behalf of women who have committed domestic violence.

American white liberals who downplay DV and rape aren't seen as feminists by most of the community from what I've seen.

American white liberals who downplace DV and rape against men are respected worldwide, and their policies adopted worldwide.

Look at this:

https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

A convention signed by 10 countries which mentions men being victims of domestic violence exactly one time, right here:

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Keep in mind, men are victimized by domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women, just nobody cares. This is a feminist position.

In Finland, rape was only considered rape when it included a man doing it to a woman till 199-something, and didn't even include oral stuff, but our first female president and a feminist while in parliament back then changed that, and now women are charged with it the same as men. During her time teachers who were fucking their kids also got their own set of laws and punishments. Nitpicking certain people won't do you no good with such a wide ranging idea. It's the same as with Islam, you won't blame a reformist for the actions of a Salafi. A minority group that's noisy will always be heard more than the moderates. Most people didn't even notice when British Mosques condemned all the recent terror attacks, and even refuse to bury the criminals.

Well, a careful look at wikipedia for Finland's rape law appears to be gender neutral. I'm not sure it's enforced that way (men who attempt to report rape by women in the US are often threatened with charges for filing a frivolous report if they try, even where it is against the law) but at least on the books it's de jure neutral.

Not sure about on the ground.

Feminism has achieved many, many more things than what you've listed. Like I said, nitpicking ain't an argument.

Feminism HAS achieved some great things. I agree. It's also achieved some terrible things, and those I don't agree with.

Own it. Don't try to play up all the good and dismiss all the bad as "fringe". Take responsibility for all of it or none of it.

No it's not though. May have been in 2007 but I'm in quite a lot of forums and communities, and discussed with probably thousands of people, and that simply is not a thing people believe in.

More to the point, it's a thing the government believes in - because the feminist researchers told them so. And that's what really matters and why you see conventions and laws that specifically exclude male victims and specifically focus on female victims. Because male victims don't matter - male victims ARE the perpetrators based on feminist theory that most (or all, depending on your flavor of feminist) women who commit DV are reacting to previous DV. It's a way of flipping the script - you found a woman beating her husband? That probably means it's HIS fault. It's a tactic to victim blame.

Of robbery or murder, yes.

Also assault. Also armed robbery. Also basically every other kind of crime.

Of rape and sexual assault, no.

No, those are probably equal or near equal (at least in the US, not sure about Finland).

It's not supposed to be a race, and focusing on either just creates a power vacuum that's filled with loudmouths like the MRAs in Redpill or RadFems in jezebel or whatever they go to. It's not the same as ending racism against white people, at all. If it still happens in Finland, it happens in the US.

It exactly the same as ending racism against white people. There's a main thrust and focus on ending violence against people already least likely to suffer violence. Just like "ending racism against white people" would be an argument with a main thrust or focus on ending racism against the people least likely to suffer racism.

The concept is, the word isn't. When has a feminist not said that there are cultural boundaries keeping women in certain boxes of assumptions?

There's a reason the word isn't. Guess why?

Where?

County governments. Congress. Not to mention the convention on domestic violence shown earlier. Oh, and Finland along with several other countries have adopted the Nordic model which, effectively, means that when a man and woman make a mutual transaction they were equally involved in, only the man is a criminal. Also, see Israel and India - where women's groups specifically worked against making rape gender neutral.

This is a feminist model.

You think feminists aren't in positions of power? Don't be absurd.

Ah yes, the MP who was then ostracized by countless feminist groups. I don't know anyone on the left or right who like her aside big city liberals who's only talking points are "rape is BAD, peace is GOOD". Not a very good example.

It's not just her. Listen to Mary Koss's radio interview. Read the articles from India and Israel. Look at the OP.

#notallfeminists are sexist assholes, but there's enough of them to really move policy, and policy is being moved: to protect rapists and abusers that happen to be female, and marginalize men who are victims of rape and abuse, and, even worse, blame them for being abused.

I'm against that.

Also, number your responses or break up the quotes. It's extremely hard to figure out what each line is responding to, especially when one of the responses was "what?"

[Kvatchdom]

Your first link doesn't exist, but I believe that.

Sorry, it moved I guess.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Strau ... -PV_10.pdf

Radicals exist in every movement, and are often more effective in getting their stuff done during eras of instability. However, again, feminism isn't a monolith or one organization, or even just one ideology.

Well, you've let the lunatics run the asylum then. As I said - this is policy getting enacted worldwide with the express purpose of protecting women abusers. You saw it yourself in the Ellen Pence paper, a feminist you said you respected by the way, where she specifically stated feminism needed to advocate on behalf of women who have committed domestic violence.

American white liberals who downplay DV and rape aren't seen as feminists by most of the community from what I've seen.

American white liberals who downplace DV and rape against men are respected worldwide, and their policies adopted worldwide.

Look at this:

https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

A convention signed by 10 countries which mentions men being victims of domestic violence exactly one time, right here:

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Keep in mind, men are victimized by domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women, just nobody cares. This is a feminist position.

In Finland, rape was only considered rape when it included a man doing it to a woman till 199-something, and didn't even include oral stuff, but our first female president and a feminist while in parliament back then changed that, and now women are charged with it the same as men. During her time teachers who were fucking their kids also got their own set of laws and punishments. Nitpicking certain people won't do you no good with such a wide ranging idea. It's the same as with Islam, you won't blame a reformist for the actions of a Salafi. A minority group that's noisy will always be heard more than the moderates. Most people didn't even notice when British Mosques condemned all the recent terror attacks, and even refuse to bury the criminals.

Well, a careful look at wikipedia for Finland's rape law appears to be gender neutral. I'm not sure it's enforced that way (men who attempt to report rape by women in the US are often threatened with charges for filing a frivolous report if they try, even where it is against the law) but at least on the books it's de jure neutral.

Not sure about on the ground.

Feminism has achieved many, many more things than what you've listed. Like I said, nitpicking ain't an argument.

Feminism HAS achieved some great things. I agree. It's also achieved some terrible things, and those I don't agree with.

Own it. Don't try to play up all the good and dismiss all the bad as "fringe". Take responsibility for all of it or none of it.

No it's not though. May have been in 2007 but I'm in quite a lot of forums and communities, and discussed with probably thousands of people, and that simply is not a thing people believe in.

More to the point, it's a thing the government believes in - because the feminist researchers told them so. And that's what really matters and why you see conventions and laws that specifically exclude male victims and specifically focus on female victims. Because male victims don't matter - male victims ARE the perpetrators based on feminist theory that most (or all, depending on your flavor of feminist) women who commit DV are reacting to previous DV. It's a way of flipping the script - you found a woman beating her husband? That probably means it's HIS fault. It's a tactic to victim blame.

Of robbery or murder, yes.

Also assault. Also armed robbery. Also basically every other kind of crime.

Of rape and sexual assault, no.

No, those are probably equal or near equal (at least in the US, not sure about Finland).

It's not supposed to be a race, and focusing on either just creates a power vacuum that's filled with loudmouths like the MRAs in Redpill or RadFems in jezebel or whatever they go to. It's not the same as ending racism against white people, at all. If it still happens in Finland, it happens in the US.

It exactly the same as ending racism against white people. There's a main thrust and focus on ending violence against people already least likely to suffer violence. Just like "ending racism against white people" would be an argument with a main thrust or focus on ending racism against the people least likely to suffer racism.

The concept is, the word isn't. When has a feminist not said that there are cultural boundaries keeping women in certain boxes of assumptions?

There's a reason the word isn't. Guess why?

Where?

County governments. Congress. Not to mention the convention on domestic violence shown earlier. Oh, and Finland along with several other countries have adopted the Nordic model which, effectively, means that when a man and woman make a mutual transaction they were equally involved in, only the man is a criminal. Also, see Israel and India - where women's groups specifically worked against making rape gender neutral.

This is a feminist model.

You think feminists aren't in positions of power? Don't be absurd.

Ah yes, the MP who was then ostracized by countless feminist groups. I don't know anyone on the left or right who like her aside big city liberals who's only talking points are "rape is BAD, peace is GOOD". Not a very good example.

It's not just her. Listen to Mary Koss's radio interview. Read the articles from India and Israel. Look at the OP.

#notallfeminists are sexist assholes, but there's enough of them to really move policy, and policy is being moved: to protect rapists and abusers that happen to be female, and marginalize men who are victims of rape and abuse, and, even worse, blame them for being abused.

I'm against that.

Also, number your responses or break up the quotes. It's extremely hard to figure out what each line is responding to, especially when one of the responses was "what?"

Sorry about the quote thing, six years in and I've always been able to avoid learning most of the neat forum tricks.

Thanks, reading up on the link now.

Well, you've let the lunatics run the asylum then. As I said - this is policy getting enacted worldwide with the express purpose of protecting women abusers. You saw it yourself in the Ellen Pence paper, a feminist you said you respected by the way, where she specifically stated feminism needed to advocate on behalf of women who have committed domestic violence.

Never said I respected her, I said she's a white liberal American with token policy to seem progressive, like many modern feminists in the west, I doubt her focus was ever to reduce violence on either sex. Feminism advocates what a feminist wants it to advocate aslong as it abides by the general definition of Feminism, it's not a monolith. I voice my disgust at Lena Dunham and others who I deem as preoccupied on single issues rather than the whole picture, and generally bad people as you probably know. America's had an issue of token Feminism ever since the 70s, and it's spread to the rest of the west with neoliberalism.

American white liberals who downplace DV and rape against men are respected worldwide, and their policies adopted worldwide.

Look at this:

https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

A convention signed by 10 countries which mentions men being victims of domestic violence exactly one time, right here:

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Keep in mind, men are victimized by domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women, just nobody cares. This is a feminist position.

More likely is that it's simply not reported or acted on as much, and this never claims violence on men shouldn't be acted on just as harshly.

Parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to promote and protect the
right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the
private sphere.

It specifies women, but does not disclude men. Not a well done paper, but I doubt it's lead to men suffering any more violence than women.¨

Well, a careful look at wikipedia for Finland's rape law appears to be gender neutral. I'm not sure it's enforced that way (men who attempt to report rape by women in the US are often threatened with charges for filing a frivolous report if they try, even where it is against the law) but at least on the books it's de jure neutral.

Not sure about on the ground.

It certainly is. We don't get that much rapists, but the females that were caught got the same sentences as men. Ridiculously low sentences, I'll admit, but still the same. You'll get 12 years for tax evasion but minimum 3 for rape, absolutely disgraceful.

Feminism HAS achieved some great things. I agree. It's also achieved some terrible things, and those I don't agree with.

Own it. Don't try to play up all the good and dismiss all the bad as "fringe". Take responsibility for all of it or none of it

It really hasn't. Do you think people took male victims of domestic violence or rape any more seriously before the movement? Of course not. When a man came out with that stuff they were most likely laughed at, or even congratulated, especially in the case of teacher raping a student. It's far better than what was before it, but it does need work. Problem is, there is no leading heads of feminism, there is no road or path to follow, which leads to radicals and token feminists.

I don't own the wrongdoings of radicals just like a Muslim family doesn't own the wrongdoings of radicals. There is no monolith of feminism, there is nothing to own up to.

More to the point, it's a thing the government believes in - because the feminist researchers told them so. And that's what really matters and why you see conventions and laws that specifically exclude male victims and specifically focus on female victims. Because male victims don't matter - male victims ARE the perpetrators based on feminist theory that most (or all, depending on your flavor of feminist) women who commit DV are reacting to previous DV. It's a way of flipping the script - you found a woman beating her husband? That probably means it's HIS fault. It's a tactic to victim blame.

Victim blaming is always horrendous and I've still yet to ever see or talk to anyone who thinks this is fair, unless you count alt-right fellas who think the man's being a pussy. There can be reactions to things, but if there's proof of who committed the DV, that should be enough to jail a person.

Also assault. Also armed robbery. Also basically every other kind of crime.
No, those are probably equal or near equal (at least in the US, not sure about Finland).

Armed robbery goes with robbery, and assault too. Though I doubt men get their asses grabbed by random people on the street.

It exactly the same as ending racism against white people. There's a main thrust and focus on ending violence against people already least likely to suffer violence. Just like "ending racism against white people" would be an argument with a main thrust or focus on ending racism against the people least likely to suffer racism.

No, it's not. I feel like global statistics, or just European wide statistics would beg to the complete differ.

There's a reason the word isn't. Guess why?

It doesn't appear in academia. Why does this matter?

County governments. Congress. Not to mention the convention on domestic violence shown earlier. Oh, and Finland along with several other countries have adopted the Nordic model which, effectively, means that when a man and woman make a mutual transaction they were equally involved in, only the man is a criminal. Also, see Israel and India - where women's groups specifically worked against making rape gender neutral.

This is a feminist model.

You think feminists aren't in positions of power? Don't be absurd.

Cat calling should be a crime, nobody wants to hear that shit. And I doubt feminists specifically got that law through. It should be expanded to accomodate to new information due to men being able to report crime more widely now. Finland has not adopted that law, brothels and internet prostitution are legal though very rare here. And the Nordic model was built to protect prostitutes from being battered or robbed during their service, which is a very real thing. Could be adressed differently, but I doubt these countries are ready to start building state-controlled brothels just yet Conservative women's group don't really count into it I believe. India also seems to specifically have an issue of women being publically raped in the open.

No, they're not. Feminists lobbying through policy does not mean they're in power.

[Kvatchdom]

Ah yes, the MP who was then ostracized by countless feminist groups. I don't know anyone on the left or right who like her aside big city liberals who's only talking points are "rape is BAD, peace is GOOD". Not a very good example.

It's not just her. Listen to Mary Koss's radio interview. Read the articles from India and Israel. Look at the OP.

#notallfeminists are sexist assholes, but there's enough of them to really move policy, and policy is being moved: to protect rapists and abusers that happen to be female, and marginalize men who are victims of rape and abuse, and, even worse, blame them for being abused.

I'm against that.

Also, number your responses or break up the quotes. It's extremely hard to figure out what each line is responding to, especially when one of the responses was "what?"

Meeting MRAs is not a respectable thing. The types who roam red pill and returnofkings should not be meeting country leaders. I'll listen to the interview later, already checked the articles. The Indian one simply wanted to change the wording to sexual assault. It's stupid, but won't change the fact female rapists would be sentenced. The guy in Israel was a hardline conservative.

Everyone should be against these people, yes, but putting all feminists under your monolith in which an Israeli nationalist and some bookwriter somehow control wholly.

EDIT: The Israeli thing was indeed a conservative and a women's rights activist, but both used conservative basis on their arguments.

[Costa Fierro]

"Safe".

Safe. Marriage is dangerous. Relationships are dangerous.

Show me an example of men being viewed as cheap and disposable.

The fact that men are drafted or conscripted in a lot of countries. The fact that men often work the most dangerous jobs. The fact that a man's value is determined by his wealth. The fact that whenever there's a major rescue, it's "women and children first".

It's quite a small percentage of men and women who're abusive constantly in a relationship.

Is it?

But why did you enter a relationship if you weren't planning to stay?

It's not that you enter into a relationship planning to leave, it's that you enter a relationship and suddenly a dynamic changes and you don't want to live with it or feel like you cannot handle it and want out. Not every guy in a relationship wants kids, and some women use them to trap men in relationships, especially if the man is wealthy. The thing with this is, you don't know if a woman is going to do it to you or not.

It is, but it's nowhere as prevalent as in the US.

It is prevalent as it is in the US.

[Galloism]

Well, you've let the lunatics run the asylum then. As I said - this is policy getting enacted worldwide with the express purpose of protecting women abusers. You saw it yourself in the Ellen Pence paper, a feminist you said you respected by the way, where she specifically stated feminism needed to advocate on behalf of women who have committed domestic violence.

Never said I respected her, I said she's a white liberal American with token policy to seem progressive, like many modern feminists in the west, I doubt her focus was ever to reduce violence on either sex. Feminism advocates what a feminist wants it to advocate aslong as it abides by the general definition of Feminism, it's not a monolith. I voice my disgust at Lena Dunham and others who I deem as preoccupied on single issues rather than the whole picture, and generally bad people as you probably know. America's had an issue of token Feminism ever since the 70s, and it's spread to the rest of the west with neoliberalism.

America and the west has had a problem with feminism in that feminism has turned ever more conservative and tried to entrench the gender norms and prevent any progress on them as soon as it became painfully aware that gender norms help women more than hurt them. Because it is and always has been a movement for women's interests - not equality. That has neatly wound up on the same side of equality in multiple cases, but not always.

And when it wasn't, feminism's actions have been... conflicted if I'm to be generous.

American white liberals who downplace DV and rape against men are respected worldwide, and their policies adopted worldwide.

Look at this:

https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

A convention signed by 10 countries which mentions men being victims of domestic violence exactly one time, right here:



Keep in mind, men are victimized by domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women, just nobody cares. This is a feminist position.

More likely is that it's simply not reported or acted on as much, and this never claims violence on men shouldn't be acted on just as harshly.

No, but it frames it as a women's issue. Keep in mind, men are already underreporting of it. Men are already marginalized in this area. Men are already the victims of sexism and discrimination in this area. And the convention reinforces that as a notion.

Parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to promote and protect the
right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the
private sphere.

It specifies women, but does not disclude men. Not a well done paper, but I doubt it's lead to men suffering any more violence than women.

No - it just reinforces the sexist narrative of women needing extra special protections because they're more likely to suffer domestic violence, when this isn't true - in fact women are privileged when it comes to that in that police and people will generally take them seriously, unlike men who are mocked, laughed at, and arrested because of their gender - even when they're the victims.

Well, a careful look at wikipedia for Finland's rape law appears to be gender neutral. I'm not sure it's enforced that way (men who attempt to report rape by women in the US are often threatened with charges for filing a frivolous report if they try, even where it is against the law) but at least on the books it's de jure neutral.

Not sure about on the ground.

It certainly is. We don't get that much rapists, but the females that were caught got the same sentences as men. Ridiculously low sentences, I'll admit, but still the same. You'll get 12 years for tax evasion but minimum 3 for rape, absolutely disgraceful.

Yeah, that's obscenely light - regardless of gender. That being said, studies that actually ask in gender neutral ways about rape show men being raped at about the same rate as women. In Europe, those studies have been immensely hard to come by, so I don't know if one was ever done in Finland, but if you're not coming up with similar numbers of female rapists not being arrested, there's probably a sexist treatment on the ground.

Feminism HAS achieved some great things. I agree. It's also achieved some terrible things, and those I don't agree with.

Own it. Don't try to play up all the good and dismiss all the bad as "fringe". Take responsibility for all of it or none of it

It really hasn't. Do you think people took male victims of domestic violence or rape any more seriously before the movement? Of course not. When a man came out with that stuff they were most likely laughed at, or even congratulated, especially in the case of teacher raping a student. It's far better than what was before it, but it does need work. Problem is, there is no leading heads of feminism, there is no road or path to follow, which leads to radicals and token feminists.

I don't own the wrongdoings of radicals just like a Muslim family doesn't own the wrongdoings of radicals. There is no monolith of feminism, there is nothing to own up to.

We're not talking about the radicals. We're talking about the people in power. I didn't vote for Trump - but our federal government (which is doing crazy things) is not something I will deny as a fringe element not representative of the whole. Guess what - we (Americans) put him there. Now we have to own it, even if we don't like him (and, guess what, most of us don't).

It wasn't radicals that made $0 in funding for men's shelters. It wasn't radicals who wrestled Erin Pizzey's shelter away from her because she wanted to also help male victims of domestic violence. These are mainstream ideas. These happen over and over again - and it's feminists and feminism leading the crusade in denying men as victims of domestic violence. Unless, of course, you're saying radicalism is mainstream, which is kind of the whole point.

More to the point, it's a thing the government believes in - because the feminist researchers told them so. And that's what really matters and why you see conventions and laws that specifically exclude male victims and specifically focus on female victims. Because male victims don't matter - male victims ARE the perpetrators based on feminist theory that most (or all, depending on your flavor of feminist) women who commit DV are reacting to previous DV. It's a way of flipping the script - you found a woman beating her husband? That probably means it's HIS fault. It's a tactic to victim blame.

Victim blaming is always horrendous and I've still yet to ever see or talk to anyone who thinks this is fair, unless you count alt-right fellas who think the man's being a pussy. There can be reactions to things, but if there's proof of who committed the DV, that should be enough to jail a person.

Well, that's an anti-feminist position you've just taken there. The feminist position is that women who commit domestic violence are either doing so in self defense or are doing so because of previous violence. In feminist parlance:

Men are actors. Women are objects. Women only react. Men act.

Also assault. Also armed robbery. Also basically every other kind of crime.
No, those are probably equal or near equal (at least in the US, not sure about Finland).

Armed robbery goes with robbery, and assault too. Though I doubt men get their asses grabbed by random people on the street.

Happens all the time, provided you're a good looking man. Men just don't typically report it because they're told, repeatedly, it's not a problem because they're a man.

It exactly the same as ending racism against white people. There's a main thrust and focus on ending violence against people already least likely to suffer violence. Just like "ending racism against white people" would be an argument with a main thrust or focus on ending racism against the people least likely to suffer racism.

No, it's not. I feel like global statistics, or just European wide statistics would beg to the complete differ.

Women are more likely to report violence - that's not the same as experiencing violence. You need to do some surveys - crime statistics are weighted on people who report, and women are told they need to report everything while men are told to "man up" and "deal with it". Even with that bias in play,

From the UK:

Men were more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women (2.4% of males compared with 1.3% of females1, Figure 1.6)2.

Almost twice as likely.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... aloffences

There's a reason the word isn't. Guess why?

It doesn't appear in academia. Why does this matter?

Because it shows the overt sexism of the term. It's designed to blame men. Men are actors - women are objects. This is why when women push gender norm bullshit on each other, it's "internalized misogyny". She's the victim of hating herself because she's internalized the system's hate of her. However, for men, it's "toxic masculinity", because it's his fault for being a man.

Words matter, and implications matter. Guess what: your (big your) implications are noted as sexist and wrong.

County governments. Congress. Not to mention the convention on domestic violence shown earlier. Oh, and Finland along with several other countries have adopted the Nordic model which, effectively, means that when a man and woman make a mutual transaction they were equally involved in, only the man is a criminal. Also, see Israel and India - where women's groups specifically worked against making rape gender neutral.

This is a feminist model.

You think feminists aren't in positions of power? Don't be absurd.

Cat calling should be a crime, nobody wants to hear that shit. And I doubt feminists specifically got that law through.

Well, good on you. It's a hate crime in some parts of England now. Mutilating boys genitals? Still a-ok.

Point is - it speaks to the power feminism a whole has. It's driving policy. Feminism wanted the vote for women? It got the vote for women. Feminism wanted domestic violence against women taken seriously? It got taken seriously. Feminism wanted catcalling outlawed? You're getting it, gradually. Feminism wanted domestic violence against men to be ignored? Good job, you got it. Feminism wanted female on male rape to remain unknown? Congratulations, you got it.

Proof of power is getting what you want as public policy and law. Guess what - feminism has power. I just wish it would use this power for equality.
And I doubt feminists specifically got that law through. ]It should be expanded to accomodate to new information due to men being able to report crime more widely now. Finland has not adopted that law, brothels and internet prostitution are legal though very rare here. And the Nordic model was built to protect prostitutes from being battered or robbed during their service, which is a very real thing. Could be adressed differently, but I doubt these countries are ready to start building state-controlled brothels just yet Conservative women's group don't really count into it I believe. India also seems to specifically have an issue of women being publically raped in the open.

No, they're not. Feminists lobbying through policy does not mean they're in power.[/quote]

Feminists getting what they want as policy means feminism has power. And, incidentally, you're partially wrong about the law in your own country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nordi ... RE20140428

Finland followed in 2006 with a partial ban, making it illegal to buy sex from a person who was trafficked or pimped. Norway and Iceland adopted Sweden's law in 2009.

...

But the majority of sex workers interviewed in Finland, Norway and Sweden said the new laws made their working conditions more dangerous.

"Now women have to go to the customers' homes, which is one of the most dangerous ways to work: you don't know what you walk into," said Pye Jakobsson, 45, a retired sex worker living in Stockholm.

Silvia, a 35-year-old from Bulgaria working as a prostitute on the streets of Norway, agreed the new secrecy posed problems.

"Before we did not go far with the customer: we would go to a car park nearby. But now the customer wants to go somewhere isolated because they are afraid," she said.

"I don't like it. There is more risk that something bad happens."

...

Some sex workers interviewed in Finland said they believed the law had increased demand for local prostitutes while cutting it for foreign ones as clients believed local women were less likely to have been trafficked or pimped.

"I haven't seen any decline in my business," said Diva Miranda, the nom de guerre of a Finnish dominatrix based in Tampere, who sees an average 10 to 20 clients a week.

She is concerned, however, that her work would become more hazardous if the law was changed to be like Sweden's.

"Some of the more law-abiding citizens would probably stop using my services. And that is not a pleasant thought. I am not really looking forward to that," she said.

...

Efforts to extend the ban in Finland to include all forms of sex purchase were recently defeated, but Finnish justice minister Anna-Maja Henriksson told Reuters she would continue to try to make the current regime tougher.

Jakobsson, the retired prostitute living in Stockholm, said she thought the law was patronizing toward women.

"On one end, some women are exploited, but on the other you have women who do it as a hobby and enjoy it. And you have everything else in between," she said.

"This law sends a message that women are victims. And the authorities don't know how to deal with women who don't see themselves as victims."

Fortunately, attempts to extend more broadly were recently defeated in Finland, but this is a feminist agenda item, and you're going to need to push back against it. Feminism IS conservatism now, and you're got a severe problem on your hands where both the liberals and conservatives are marching to the drumbeat of conservatism.

It's not just her. Listen to Mary Koss's radio interview. Read the articles from India and Israel. Look at the OP.

#notallfeminists are sexist assholes, but there's enough of them to really move policy, and policy is being moved: to protect rapists and abusers that happen to be female, and marginalize men who are victims of rape and abuse, and, even worse, blame them for being abused.

I'm against that.

Also, number your responses or break up the quotes. It's extremely hard to figure out what each line is responding to, especially when one of the responses was "what?"

Meeting MRAs is not a respectable thing. The types who roam red pill and returnofkings should not be meeting country leaders.

Return of Kings are pickup artists (also distasteful to be generous) and The Red Pill is... the red pill. TRP defies classification. Neither TRP or ROK are MRAs.

It's like me going to a meeting of communists and female chauvenists and declaring from that that feminists are bad. That would be an unfair characterization.

I'll listen to the interview later, already checked the articles. The Indian one simply wanted to change the wording to sexual assault. It's stupid, but won't change the fact female rapists would be sentenced. The guy in Israel was a hardline conservative.

Everyone should be against these people, yes, but putting all feminists under your monolith in which an Israeli nationalist and some bookwriter somehow control wholly.

EDIT: The Israeli thing was indeed a conservative and a women's rights activist, but both used conservative basis on their arguments.

Yes, feminism is conservative now.

[Greater Cesnica]

I'm not sure why it would be.

I think (and I am just guessing here) the assumption is if neither sex is turned on by the idea of being forced to have sex against their will, a man will have an advantage when forcing a woman (because they can get hard if they are turned on by the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, and thus be able to insert the penis in the vagina) where as a woman will find it more difficult to get the man hard (in order for her to have him stick his penis into her).

That is, of course, assuming she is using HIS penis to penetrate HER. If there are other implements involved (which I will leave to your imagination) then none of what I just wrote really applies all that much.

Plus there is the potential problem that if you play with a guy's dick for long enough it will get hard whether he wants it to or not. But that is another matter, and not something I think we should really get into discussing at this point, especially on a forum that is supposed to be PG-13 because I am certain I am coming close to crossing that already.

(And please remember - everything above is literally all guess work since I have not made a study of how to rape men or women. Something you are all probably glad to know).

What the fuck did I just stumble on again?

[Costa Fierro]

I think (and I am just guessing here) the assumption is if neither sex is turned on by the idea of being forced to have sex against their will, a man will have an advantage when forcing a woman (because they can get hard if they are turned on by the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, and thus be able to insert the penis in the vagina) where as a woman will find it more difficult to get the man hard (in order for her to have him stick his penis into her).

That is, of course, assuming she is using HIS penis to penetrate HER. If there are other implements involved (which I will leave to your imagination) then none of what I just wrote really applies all that much.

Plus there is the potential problem that if you play with a guy's dick for long enough it will get hard whether he wants it to or not. But that is another matter, and not something I think we should really get into discussing at this point, especially on a forum that is supposed to be PG-13 because I am certain I am coming close to crossing that already.

(And please remember - everything above is literally all guess work since I have not made a study of how to rape men or women. Something you are all probably glad to know).

What the fuck did I just stumble on again?

Apparently a suggestion that female on male rape isn't as bad because it isn't as easy.

[Ors Might]

What the fuck did I just stumble on again?

Apparently a suggestion that female on male rape isn't as bad because it isn't as easy.

And one that completely misunderstands how erections typically work.

[Costa Fierro]

Apparently a suggestion that female on male rape isn't as bad because it isn't as easy.

And one that completely misunderstands how erections typically work.

Not the first time this has happened, won't be the last.